Via Allah, I’m pointed to this post by Jill at Feministe that begins with a discussion of the mistreatment of women in Saudi Arabia (using the story of Rania al-Baz as its jumping off point) but ends, disappointingly, as a reminder that, like Saudi Arabia, we here in the US are guilty of crimes against women—and that, in our readiness to demonize the Saudi Other, we shield ourselves from our own cultural shortcomings with regard to the institutionalized mistreatment of women:
It’s too easy to read a story [about Rania al-Baz, who allowed photographs of herself to be publicized after she was savagely beaten by her husband] and respond, “Wow, they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,†thus exoticising domestic crimes and excusing yourself (ourselves) from any ownership over this society, which also tacitly excuses violence against women. Yes, women in the United States have far more resources than Saudi women when trying to escape abusive situations, and the cult of silence around such violence has had holes poked in it here. For that, we can all thank feminism. But to claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.
In response to this argument, which relies on the “yes, but” formulation so popular in progressive circles, Karol of Alarming News points out the rhetorical flaw that diminishes an otherwise strong post, while in the process making an important political point:
They sure are backward over there in Saudi Arabia.
Is America perfect? Yes, compared to the land of Saud, we are. You do a disservice to the battle against violence of women by even noting our problems in the same post as Saudi Arabia. America bashing is always fun, I’m sure, but it makes us take the problems of Saudi Arabia much less seriously when you draw a moral equivalence between what happens here and what happens there. It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America. It makes people tune you out and not to take you seriously and whatever point you were trying to make becomes muddled or irrelevant under that equivalence.
For her trouble, Karol is treated to this response by Chris Clarke:
Interestingly put, but I think I prefer your statement in its original wording
—which treats us to the sound of a sheep bleating.
Rox Populi asked the other day what it might take for moderate Republicans and independents to return to the Democratic Party.
To which I said, quite seriously, that the first thing the Dems would have to do is nuke their base.
Karol’s argument represents a legitimate opinion—and exposes a problem many people have with the progressive worldview that feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others. Comparing—even obliquely—the situation of women in Saudi Arabia to that of women here, causes many people in the center and on the right (and probably a few pragmatic Dems, too) to tune out. In fact, such mannered, rote, forced introspection is the reason CNN and the networks lost so many viewers after 911. It’s the reason people have cancelled their subscriptions to major newspapers. In its desire to spread the offense and so avoid the charge of making a directed rebuke (which rebuke would invariably be labeled racist, imperialist, sexist, homophobic, etc), it ends up putting people off and soft-peddling the abhorent behavior it starts out to criticize.
We in the US know our failings. We know our past. But after 911, the majority of us surrendered the liberal guilt we had the luxury to wallow in when we thought we’d reached the end of history precisely because we know, at heart, that we are a good country. And we have little time for self-flagellation, particularly when such strains to point up a symmetry between ourselves and the culture from which our enemy springs like sword-wielding weeds.
But instead of addressing any of those feelings, which translate, I should add, into the current political reality so many on the left rail against consistently and in the most vile terms (how many Dems crossed over to vote for Bush in 2004?), people like Chris Clarke react by suggesting Karol is a sheep, that she hasn’t thought through her position at all.
It is typical of the kind of discourse those on the left are treating us to these days. And yeah—blah blah Michael Savage Rush Limbaugh Ann Coulter blah blah blah. But if you read through that the thread at Rox Populi, where moderate Repubs and independents explained what needs happen to the Dem Party before they’d consider voting that way again, you’ll note that, about midway through, the response from the leftists who showed up to hijack the conversation is to suggest that all those purporting to be “moderates” are in fact “liars,” that they are evil, that they are sheep, and that they shouldn’t be listened to.
Which people like Jill would do well to think about before they rend their garments over their failure to move the culture in a “progressive” direction: because the way many on the Left treat those they wish would join them is closer to battered wife syndrome than it is to fruitful political discourse.
Maybe she should direct some of her feminist critique that way.
****
update: Chris Clarke responds:
Oh, those poor mistreated right-wingers.
Apparently, we’re supposed to respond with apologetic good manners to the lies they promulgate in their ongoing subjugation of our country.
Gosh, did I accidentally get some faceprints on your boots there? Nasty of me.
No, Chris. You avoided the point. And now you’ve done so again.
Which leads me to believe that you couldn’t find the point were it to dress up as Howard Zinn and promise to stick a pinky up your ass.
update 2: John Cole’s commenters offer their typically well-considered responses, the gist of which seems to be that I’ve not considered the rectitude of Jill’s position because I’m too busy defending Amerikkka at all costs.
This, from the party of nuance.
****
update 3: My response to David Schraub here.
When you mentioned “knee jerk self criticism” the light bulb went on. Self criticism was de rigeur in all the old Marxist/Leninist discourse. We cannot be pure, our system cannot be pure, until it has been subjected to self critical analysis. Self criticism is central to finding truth! And anyone who cannot see the value of this has either been duped into believing what they believe or is (shudder) a wrecker out to discredit and/or destroy the progressive cause. Another tenet of the modern left. It never totally dawned on me before but they are all still a bunch of damned Marxists.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!!
“Real feminists wear burkas.”
– Random progressive, circa 2005
I am left of center politically. I could list all the lefty positions I believe in, from Abortion to Zebra-protection, but the reason I vote (Federally at least) for Bush & the Rep’s is that the Dem’s have gone to far to appeasing their base & seem willing to simply let the terrorists kill & win if it hurts Bush. At this time in history with the new facists trying (yet again) to take over the world, I don’t have time for that garbage.
So in a few dozen years, when the facists are defeated, I will go back to pushing for my progressive values. Until the Dem’s can honestly offer to fight against those facists, I will go with those that will–even if I think their social views are wrong or even when they screw-up carrying out the war– ‘cause at least they are willing to fight to keep the freedoms that this country has.
Until that freedom is safe, the interesting fight about, oh say, putting ‘In god we trust’ on the money being the moral equivlent of the Taliban’s stoning of the gays seems rather stupid & trival.
But then I must be another sheep bleating in the wind.
This&That
That is a good example why I view my former comrades on the left as damaged goods. Seems to me that it would be easy for people to find the common ground on which they both stand and move forward together. Most, I would think, agree that raping and beating women is bad. Most would agree that people should have the right to vote. Most would agree that people should live as free as possible as long as they’re not hurting anyone. There’s a great deal more that all Americans agree upon than disagree upon. The hurting begins when we get more hung up on the minor differences than the greater similarities.
The simple fact is that the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq would have been heralded by both sides of the political divide if the president had a “D” after his name insteads of an “R”. The discourse of “yes, but” would not happen if some on the left weren’]t searching hard and fast for reasons to be against something they should clearly be for.
What is it with these people? We report a murder and they answer, “Well, you did throw that rock that time, and it could have killed someone, you know”.
“I was skipping a rock across the water, you fool! No person was even near me.”
“Well, you don’t know who might have been under that water, now do you”?
Jeff, I gave up on these people a long time ago.
Chris Clarke responds yet again:
“Everyone having fun counting the ways in which Jeff’s response is blatantly hypocritical? I’m up to four, myself.”
Everyone say it at once…BECAUSE OF THE….
On Victor Hanson’s site, there is a first-person account of a visitor to Saudi Arabia witnessing a woman being bound and thrown into the trunk by a man, prepratory to being buried alive out in the desert. This happened on a major highway, in a city. No one even got out of their car to protest. Several men snickered.
Women in Saudi Arabia have fewer rights than domestic pets in the Unites States. To compare the two demonstrates an appalling lack of perspective.
Because of the LIES, and the SUBJUGATION.
I think.
Reading shit like this gets my bloodpressure up. I’d like to be able to write out a measured, even tempered response, but it’s obvious people like Chris and Jill aren’t talking the same language we are (I believe Allah brought that perspective up here a while back).
Instead, due to my lack of creative writing abilities, I would end up using profanity and not furthering the conversation in any helpful way.
Kind of like Chris.
What’s more telling is that one of the first comments over there cited the disgusting murder of a woman in New York as some sort of proof that women are repressed in the US. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. The scum who did that is going to jail, whereas in Islamic countries “honor killing” of women is widely accepted and guilt-free. There is no moral equivalancy you could possibly draw, but there they are anyway.
I commonly tell people the 2004 election was really the Dems’ to lose. I would’ve voted for a Democrat who sounded like an adult, or failing that Bill Clinton so late-night TV would be funny again. Instead we got a Mass. liberal direct out of Central Casting with no obvious character traits other than lying (which is sort of assumed of politicians anyway). People complain that Miers is a cypher – Kerry wasn’t a lot better. I wouldn’t hesitate to cast him as the lead in a film about Michael Dukakis though.
Turing word: “actually”, as in “the Dems need to get in touch with reality, actually”.
Jeff, I admire the fact that you’re not too depressed and disheartened to keep addressing this issue because I am.
An article on Melanie Phillips’ site (Why I am a Progressive) turned me on to a famous essay by David Selbourne entitled Moral Evasion. It’s available in pdf and HTML and I’d suggest everyone read it. In it, he describes our orwellian slide into moral relativism and outlines 11 contemporary attitudes that confirm it.
Among the excuses we allow ourselves for not standing up for what is right:
1. There is nothing you can do about it–or not uch
2. It has never been any different
3. There is no quick fix to this problem
4. This is the price of a free society
5. Everything is changing and you must move with the tide
6. It is no use turning the clock back
7. This problem is much more complex than you think
8. This problem is beyond the reach of the law
9. You are focusing on the wrong issue or the wrong target
10. People in glass houses…
11. Everyone does it (or most people do)
Naturally, item 10 is a much-beloved fallcy of the left: We are not good enough ourselves, and so are powerless to have a positive effect on lifting the sorrows of anyone else, so why try. Give up. Of it Selbourne writes, ”Once more, a blockade is erected. Beyond it, no moral argument is intended to go.”
In parroting form 10, Jill is exposing just how unthinking, pessimistic and morally bankrupt her argument is.
What’s so depressing about seeing this sort of thing at Feministe is that it’s really not a far-left site. It’s plenty left, but from what I can tell, Lauren and Jill are not part of the MoveOn crowd.
And yet, they’re still capable of moral equivalence on this scale. Or at least, Jill is.
Jeff is right to link this up with Roxanne’s post from the other day. What will it take to get moderate Republicans to vote Democrat? Nothing. Because even “good” Democrats, almost as a matter of instinct, revert to Jill’s “people in glass houses…” logic when the subject turns to foreign cultures. You hit it on the head the other day, JG: the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the former, with all their flaws, at least “seem committed to the belief that our interests are worth protecting.”
Not that I’m questioning anyone’s patriotism.
I think that’s an unfair critique – I don’t think that she’s parroting point 10 at all, in fact, quite the opposite – she’s counseling that Americans not rest on their laurels because – ostensibly – we’re more like Saudi Arabia than we think.
This argument is ridiculously morally relativistic and actually serves to demean the situation of women in the kingdom, of course, but she’s not advocating “not standing up for what’s right” anywhere in her post.
I agree 110% with this comment by Robert under that thread:
His position doesn’t argue against doing nothing either, rather states that culture is a hedge on this sort of behavior, and it’s important to acknowledge as much.
Jeff,
Outstanding post. Thank you.
Jill forgets that in Saudi Arabia these are not considered ‘cultural ills’ but rather ‘cultural features’.
What I found interesting about the comments over at Roxy’s–leaving aside Ed Marshall’s tedious leftbot ejaculations–was the number of commenters who were willing to write off centrists entirely, on the grounds that most of the non-Democrats who responded to Roxy’s question couldn’t possibly be moderates, or must be lying about ever having voted Democrat. That is, if you’re not willing to buy into their fantasy ideology wholesale, they don’t want you at all.
You know, I think they actually want to keep losing elections.
This whole argument (if you can call it that) reminds of me of a conversation I had in the 90’s during my marxist/uber-liberal days carousing the halls of UC Boulder and FIGHTING THE MAN!!..
I was your typical Zinn/Chomsky apostle, always ready to demonstrate the ways in which THE MAN had kept down minorities and women in this country. Then I met a family who had deserted Saudi Arabia and somehow made it to Colorado. The son who was my age was washing dishes at a nightclub I cooked at while he worked three other jobs and took night classes. I used to have many political conversations with him when things would get slow at night. The one that sticks out in my memory was the one that started my eventual progression away from the loony left and towards the O’Rourke conservative independents.
We were discussing slavery and I of course was noting the horrible circumstances that the US subjected African Americans to, even in the 20th century. His reponse was basically thus-
“there is a difference though. In the US, you have come out and faced the moral hypocrisy of slavery, fought a civil war over it, and spent the last century working to overcome the civil rights issues associated thereof. You exposed your problems and overcame them. In my country, we STILL HAVE SLAVES….”
Thus the conversation ended, and the wake up call began.
Here’s the problem. No one made that argument. There’s a difference between saying, “that society treats its women like dirt” and saying “no one in our society treats women like dirt”, yet she felt it necessary to go there.
Why?
Remember the Biblical bit about the mote in the other guy’s eye and the beam in your own? This is a case of a mote in our eye and a beam in the Saudi eye; pointing it out doesn’t make us perfect, or excuse our failings.
(And I’m sure someone will chime in with “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”—keep in mind that while that’s a figure of speech in the west it’s not in Saudi Arabia.)
Ya, that Chris Clarke is a fine thinker and persuasive debater.
I remember a few months ago over at Michael Berube’s blog some academic commenter said something innocuous about how someone in the news was not helpful to call Gitmo as bad as or worse than the Gulag, it would not be credible or convincing to highlight abuses of that scale.
Chris Clarke jumped all over her, said people like her excused bushitler’s amerikkan atrocities and were dooming all of mankind, didn’t give a damn about the suffering, etc. Just smoking ruins, and this was against a fellow lefty who deigned to say something without prefacing it with hysterical condemnation.
First we’ll defeat the capitalist imperialists, then we deal with the real enemy – those lackeys in the Socialist Workers Party, and the Alliance of Socialist Workers, and oh yeah, especially the Earth First polluters
BECAUSE OF THE CAPITALISM!
the real joke of course is that “left” and “right” per se are non existent in u.s. politics. the left has no intellectual core to speak of and is far too scared and out of touch the fight for anything controversial. the right, having lost the left as opponent, has turned itself into a kind of new left in service to the right, with the government can your problems stance of the iraq and katrina aid package. but americans are stuck arguing from these positions that have long since been hollowed out.
I’m amused by the comment on Cole’s about the Republicans being “always opposed to women’s rights”. I must’ve missed it when Tom Delay introduced the Free Honor Killing Wednesdays Act and it passed Congress.
Sheesh, Jeff, you can at least leave us a trackback so I can better monitor our criticism.
Let’s not forget how the Republicans passed the Jim Crow laws, rioted whenever a black Democrat was elected to office in the South, and opposed the Civil Rights Act!
Lauren —
I did trackback. Here’s my previous pings list:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/10/09/publicizing-the-private/trackback/
http://www.faultline.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1387
Did it not take?
True, but the “yes, but” argument always implies that we should put our own house in order before standing up for what’s right elsewhere. That is to say, we need to be perfect before demanding that anyone else be good. Which, of course, is horseshit. Sullivan, to his credit, has been knocking gay-rights groups lately for employing this same logic. They have nothing to say about gays being executed in Iran, but let a kid with gay parents get expelled from school down south somewhere and they go apeshit. Interesting priorities.
To be clear: the problem with Jill’s post isn’t that she’s criticizing domestic violence in America. That’s all to the good. The point is that she couldn’t get through a single post about domestic violence abroad without bringing America into it. This is why I emphasized the word “instinct” in my previous comment. It’s almost a compulsion that, when criticizing a foreign culture, they have to direct some venom at the U.S. or the GOP just to sort of balance things out, ensure that their tolerance bona fides aren’t called into question, etc.
On the other hand, I give her credit for blogging about this at all. Most of her colleagues ignore the seamier aspects of foreign cultures altogether. You’ll never see Wolcott or Frank Rich or Jill’s fucking hero Bob Herbert write about honor killings or Palestinian brainwashing of children; after all, what right do we have to criticize Arabs when there are people in America who SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN? So instead it falls to people like Charles Johnson to cover that stuff, and for his trouble, for his outrageous offense of simply linking to news articles about Arab/Muslim atrocities, the lefties make a big fucking show of delinking him and calling him a Nazi. More nuance, I guess.
Robert, you know that your satire goes completely over the heads of those twits?
Yeah. But I was compelled to do it.
A: Yes, Saudi Arabia has a big problem with the way they treat their women, but America has a little problem, too!
B: No, America has a little problem with the way they treat their women, but Saudi Arabia has a big problem, too!
A: No, you have to say it my way!
B: No, you have to say it my way!
Least. Productive. Conversation. Ever!
Stupid trackbacks. No, they didn’t take.
Allah,
You are so right. I believe that is called “making perfect the enemy of the good.”
So Jeff isn’t the only one with flaky trackbacks. It’s an epidemic!! At least it isn’t bird flu.
Hey, Jack?
It’s easy to. do. the. staggered. punctuation. bit! But such doesn’t. mean. you’ve. understood. the. post. at. all!
Read it again. Then, when you feel you have a grasp of the subject matter, try to add something useful—keeping in mind that you are not really as clever as you think you are.
Deal?
There was a Sally Field movie a while back that dealt with this subject. It was frickin scary and I am a guy. the husband was Doc Oc from Spiderman2.
You can’t in anyway compare, I am guessing it has to do with white Christians, the treatment of Christian wives vs. the treatment of wives of Islamists…
Of course,it doesn’t mean anything because we have a Republican President.
I love the self-congratulation, “For that, we can all thank feminism.”
That’s what it’s all about anyway. Nutbags.
It’s not just a case of the “yes, but” syndrome.
This sentence is just flat out wrong.
There are NO cultural ills in the US that promote or allow said violence against women (apart from Rap music). Does this violence occur in the US? Yes, but it is no more encouraged or promoted or overlooked than any other form of violence. It is illegal to beat your wife, it is morally repulsive to beat your wife. That is the current state of US culture.
To be fair–although I’m not a regular reader of Feministe, from what I see of their posters over here they’re hardly to be confused with posters like Chris Clarke; they’ve been generally reasonable and good-natured in response to Jeff’s criticism, they don’t seem to be the sort of blinkered true-believers who can’t respond intelligently to disagreement because they aren’t capable of conceiving of believing other than they currently do. Like Bill, I think Jill deserves credit for seriously addressing the reality of the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. And making reference to continued violence against women in the U.S. is not intended in this context (I don’t think) as an excuse for the much worse and officially condoned excesses of Saudi Arabia–it simply functions to make the argument more palatable to certain potential audiences. If I am a person of the left (or even a person surrounded by a leftist culture and subject to many of the same presuppositions) I am naturally suspicious of Western criticism of other cultures and especially of Middle Eastern cultures; if I am a citizen or a descendant of citizens of Saudi Arabia or even of other Muslim countries, I may naturally be offended by what I see as (or, to avoid engaging with the argument, prefer to brand as) cultural condescension or racism. I would say that Jill simply meant to forestall accusations of racism or self-righteousness by an appeal to the common human fallibility of both our cultures–much as a pastor trying to get one of his parishioners to quit drinking to excess might appeal to his own past history of alcoholism or some other sin which he nonetheless managed to overcome.
On the other hand–as I think was Jeff’s main point–Chris Clarke is just an asshole. But you can’t hold a blogger responsible for every jerk in his or her comment section.
I liked what Jonah Goldberg said, shortly after 9/11:
“It’s good that we have a healthy skepticism about the actions of our own government and our intentions as a people. But, never forget, “Who are we to judge?” is not an answer. It is a question. And there is a response to it.
“We are the United States of America, a free society and a free nation which has been, and continues to be, along with a few other comrades-in-arms like Great Britain, the greatest force for good in the history of the world  even after you deduct our considerable mistakes and shortcomings. Through our ideas, enterprise, and generosity we have done more, in the words of Francis Bacon (hmm…bacon), to relieve man’s estate than any other nation or people in human history. To refute this is not a sign of sophistication; it is a sign of ignorance.”
I’ll say your trackback isn’t working, but everytime I do 5 of my trackbacks just pop up later–error message not withstanding.
But in any event, here’s my response
Hell, in Saudi, abuse of women is not even just a cultural “feature” .. it’s a cultural treasure.
I can’t keep up with all the Double Think coming at us these days.
I kinda got used to being Called a Neo-Con, I can even shrug my shoulders and let Neo-Nazi and Neo-Facist roll off me, but today? When I read
BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEO-BOLSHEVIK???????????
I wish they would make up their minds but it IS interesting to see them give credit for the Georgia had the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, then try to parlay that into a bad thing.
Like Democratization GOOD/ Bush BAD oops we just said he was responsible what do we do now?
Like the Red Queen said Some people with training and practice can believe SIX different impossible things before breakfast.
Not unlike those that support the torture of detainees because another countries cultural norms behead people.
Huh?
Who is supporting the torture of Muslims? To the degree anybody supports “torture” (and this is a semantic issue with you, I’m sure), it’s against captured terrorists who we have good reason to believe might have information that could save innocent lives. And this is transposed against terrorists who saw off the heads of non-combatants.
Sorry. Not seeing the correlation.
Right. Because I’m sure you could actually find a politician from either party, or a pundit with any readership, who has actually stated in plain terms that it’s ok to torture detainees on account of the existence of other countries that practise beheading.
Nothing is contributed to the discussion by beating your strawmen in front of everyone and parading it around like you’ve made a point. Since I doubt you’ll find anyone here willing to defend the position you just articulated, what exactly did you THINK you would accomplish by saying this?
BECAUSE OF THE…WELL, YOU KNOW.
Since I think any discussion can be improved by mentioning zombie movies, I’ve noticed some people say that the point of Night of the Living Dead is that the rednecks with guns were every bit as bad as the zombies, because they killed the hero.
On the other hand, some people say “Fine—I’ll play the odds, walk towards the rednecks with guns with my hands up while yelling, ‘I AM NOT A ZOMBIE.’ You can go skipping trala into the arms of your morally-equivilent zombie buddies, jerkwad.”
Because I am now absolutely convinced some people would rather do that.
Yeah, Romero made that point even more explicitly in Land of the Dead, which licked balls. Agitprop with zombies. And not even entertaining agitprop, at that.
Aren’t you actually restating the problem, and calling it the answer?
“But to claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.”
What is delusional is even putting Saudi Arabian societal, cultural and religous denigration of women in the same sentence as a comment on the problems women face in our country. The key difference is in law. US law given women remedies. Saudi Arabian law institutionalizes and legitimizes their oppression; it’s literally an “article of faith.”
I can hear the rebuttal now: “Yes, but. . . .”
Keeerist almighty.
Said by someone with her Gloria Steinham alter adorned with fresh flowers and no fucking clue from the domestic violence front.
Who the FUCK is allowing “intimate partner violence”?? Certainly not the cops I know who routinely haul one or the other or BOTH in. Not the issuing DDA’s I know who review the reports and only turn down those where it’s clear it was either mutual violence or someone lying. Not the victim/witness advocates who spend their days trying to convince the victims (BOTH men and women, straight and gay) that they NEED to testify. Not the prosecuting special unit DDA’s who take these cases to court and many times have to have the victims declared hostile witnesses because THEY DON’T WANT TO PROSECUTE THEIR PARTNERS.
Jaysus on a Pony, would these females get their heads out of the ass of 1960??
Aren’t you actually restating the problem, and calling it the answer?
Jill seems (to me) to be making an effort to be tactful in her criticism of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, in the hopes that this is a better way to provoke her hearers–whether leftists, practicing Muslims, or people of Muslim heritage–to actually listen to what she is saying rather than dismissing it immediately out of hand. I don’t agree that this is necessarily the most effective approach; I certainly don’t approve of the exaggerated sensitivity to cultural slights that prompts it (this is, as you say, a ‘problem’ and a barrier to productive discussion between people of different cultures)–but I don’t think it means that she is unserious about the suffering of Saudi women, or that she seriously believes there is a moral equivalence between honor killings and Victoria’s Secret catalogs. And, given the cultural milieu from which she is speaking, I still think she deserves credit for raising the issue at all.
Courageous woman! There’s a picture of here before the assault, she is so beautiful, and it’s so painful to see what her husband did.
http://missmabrouk.blogspot.com/2005/10/abused-popular-tv-host-escapes-ksa.html
Jeff: Why do you do this to yourself. Life is too short to spend time trying to straighten out the twits (wrong vowel?) on that site.
P.S. I think torturing terrorists is a great idea. Unfortunately treating them like fraternity pledges is not torture and may cause them to take us less seriously.
Gonna have to go back farther than that Darleen. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s in unenlightened Appalachia. I was a little redneck, hillbilly boy. While I am sure domestic violence was a problem behind some closed doors, it was not condoned. In fact I and all my friends clearly understood that nothing a man could do was any more cowardly and contemptible that striking a woman.
HYPOCRISY!!! (Thanks Sean)
There you go Jeff and Adam.
What a moron. The absolute lowest common denominator.
Went to Cole’s site, ready to stomp some butt. Read most of the comments and then left without posting a word. It was like being in a mental ward. I’m tempted to go back and poke the hive with a stick, just to see them angrily swarm around a little bit more, but I guess that’s a little too juvenile. If only this were USENET…
B Moe
You are quite right, of course. As chauvinistic that many men of say, the 40’s and 50’s, were, the vast majority would recoil in horror at the idea of male beating a woman. Many a small town didn’t resort to having “the law” intervene..usually a ..ahem..friendly visit by a few upstanding men of the town on the transgressor would make said transgressor “see the light” (or see the edge of town).
The 60-70’s was not just about getting justice for those women without resources, but it transmorgrified to bashing men about being chivalrous, too. As if opening doors and helping a gal in trouble was just another facet of the Oppressive Patriarchal Conspiracy. As sad Amanda says in the comments there:
MUBAR.
I rather like a being chivalrouos.
But then during the horrors of militant feminism I lived in the Southa and I NEVER stopped holding doors open or lighting cigarettes and I NEVER got insulted for it, usually got at least a smile and a thankyou.
That is called courtesy I believe.
Oh and as for the battered women thing? I once came around the corner in my Dad’s Farm Store because a couple was getting Little loud, JUST as the guy was rearing back his fist.
He took one look at my face and ran out the door. I sat the little girl down found out she was about 15 or 16 had gotten married and didn’t know anyone in the area, her family was a far piece away,
SO I sat her down, dialed a number and said.
“I want you to talk to this woman, I will be outside in the store, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to, but if you WANT to them to come pick you up, no one is going to stop you.
I guess this Amanda would dis me for that?
Did I expect anything from that little girl?
Nope. Did I ever see or hear from her again?
Nope. As soon as the women’s shelter picked her up I was through with it.
grrr…gotta side with the feministas on this one. Whut Bill said, beating up wimmen is what XYs do. Look at South America. There’s honor killing there too. The difference is Islam has institutionalized it–but heyah, we did too. In Michigan we had to research outdated laws in high school–guess what? A husband could legally beat his wife, as long as the stick was no thicker than his wrist–and a wife’s hair belonged to her husband. ugg. The rule of law preserves us from that now, and that is what everyone needs.
And Allah, yes, whut GW said about ID was evilawfulbadwrong. He made ID into Lysenkoism with that statement–a state sponsored pseudo-science.
I believe the operative word there might be ”did.” Think about that, willya?
I’m fairly sure that they don’t so much think about women as “intimate partners” in Saudi Arabia, but rather more of as chattel.
Cowardice is a complex condition, but it still has that distinctive smell. The feminist establishment failed its first real test of fire a decade ago, when Clinton was around. Can anyone doubt, for the briefest of moments, that if you grafted his behavior towards women onto a Republican, he would be forced to resign? Does Packwood ring a bell? To sell one’s principles, so cheaply–as the reward of the same political stripe and its attendant graft–is done out of cowardice. You either get bin Laden from the Saudis or you hit them up for some cash.
The Democrat/liberal stripe is now the color of yellow. It is much safer to disregard our enemies and pick on Amerikkka to the point of enabling those who we fight against. If you work in the media game, a cowardly CNN would bribe Saddam for precious access and, more to the point, for precious safety than report the truth. Oh, there are exceptions: Michael Kelly, Daniel Pearle, Steve Vincent or Michael Yon come to mind. But you do see it don’t you? Three of those four brave and intrepid reporters are dead. No cowardice there.
Its as plain as a clear day in Sept. Its either the bravery of the “343” or its the cowardice of NO. Its either Giuliani or Nagin, does it get any sharper? The Left no longer contributes its own equally to defend this country. The causes of our enemies become their talking points, or vice-versa. The interchange has been going on for so long now, that it is wonder that they don’t sit around tea with the Islamofacists. Cause in America, you won’t even get a tune-up without becoming a celebrity while you cover your ass with the headchoppers.
Its called cowardice.
And they call us sheep? Are they the majority of the first responders? Are they the majority of our military? As Bill Whittle has described, we Reds are the sheepdogs and we have not endured their incessant bleats and stampedes (can sheep stampede?) since 9/11 for the privilege of joining their flock. Oh, and when they are willing to flog their own for their innumerable transgressions, as we do to our own, then they can join in. Otherwise, they can go and graze somewhere else.
Gloria Steinem burned women’s bras but has Left a legacy of sagging siliconed breasts worn by ex-lax induced anorexic hollow shells whose faces are stoned to death by botox all controlled by a helpless mind deluded with an illusion they are sexy. No wonder they need Hillary’s fucking village to raise a single child.
Oh yeah Sisterhood…you’ve come a looonnnggg wwaaaayyy baabbbbyyy.
Give me Liberty from such hideous Equality. I’ve had enough of their oppressive Feminism.
The long and short of it through out this entire debate from the leftist perspective is…we do it too, therefore who are we to moralize and criticize others.
Shocked look on face, this coming from a feminist? No I’m not really shocked with that defence, or moral equivalence.
All during the feminist movement the goal was to soften up the men, after all we did get a “I feel you pain” President.
The end result was the very first Albright, who by all standards of manly men before her shocked awed the world with her tough talk…”Does this scarf match my skirt”?
I tried to hold out as long as I could. Nowhere did I say that we don’t have a right to moralize and criticize others. I criticized Saudi Arabia in the post; in the comments, I said multiple times that women there have it far, far, far worse than women here. I never said that the plight of Saudi women is identical to that of American women.
I wrote one short paragraph mentioning the United States, at the end of the post. My general point was that culture breeds violence; because of its particular culture, Saudi Arabia condones it and breeds it in much higher numbers than the United States does. But, because I’m a citizen of this country, I would always like to see things improve here. When it comes to domestic violence, we could be better. It’s a big problem here, and just because it’s not on the scale of the Saudi problem doesn’t mean that we should ignore it. That’s no where near me saying that we have no right to criticize. In fact, seems to me that I’m being pretty damn critical.
Jill
Culture breeds violence?
What could be more violent than the cultural burden of choosing to legally shove a vacumn cleaner up your vagina in order to suck the life out of life while at the very same time castrate the male’s DNA contribution? Furthering the burden is preventing females from the liberty to speak of the violence because The Feminist Movement demands Her Right to Privacy.
I’m a citizen, a female and have every right to criticize the manner in which today’s concept of Feminism believes baby-killing and male castration is a form of female empowerment.
When I was twenty I had no idea who Margaret Sanger was but believed her revived Feminist Cause anyway simply because She said She spoke on my behalf. Now I’m way past 40 and have discovered her hideous secret I no longer can ignore.
I do not believe younger females have any idea how The Movement over the past three decades has weakened, rather than strengthed, today’s female.
Jill, you don’t think that sentence is a bit over-the-top? You are claiming that the cultural ills that promote and allow intimate partner violence exist in Saudi Arabia also exist here in the US, and to think otherwise is delusional and (gasp) dangerous. Are you serious? Are you hysterical?
BTW, where in the fuck did the term “intimate partner violence” come from? I can see why “wife-beating” might not be 21st-century enough, but what was wrong with “domestic abuse”? Why do I have to keep changing my vocabulary?
Jill
When it comes to domestic violence, we could be better
I’m listening. Let’s have some substansive suggestions.
I’m sure my DA’s office will be eager to see what they’ve been missing all these years.
Because of The Patriarchy, of course.
In Michigan we had to research outdated laws in high school–guess what? A husband could legally beat his wife, as long as the stick was no thicker than his wrist-
Yeah. Sure. Uh huh.
Christina Hoff Summers blew out of the water the canard about “rule of THUMB” and your contending a wrist sized cudgel was just OK in MI.
Color me incredulous.
I wrote one short paragraph mentioning the United States, at the end of the post. My general point was that culture breeds violence; because of its particular culture, Saudi Arabia condones it and breeds it in much higher numbers than the United States does. But, because I’m a citizen of this country, I would always like to see things improve here. When it comes to domestic violence, we could be better.
America, like most civilized nations, follows laws that forbid the murder and mutilation of women. As I pointed out on your blog, the Sharia laws that govern Saudi Arabia often require and demand the murder and mutilation of women.
Saudi laws are an abomination when compared to American laws. They’re an abomination when compared to French, Thai, Chinese, Russian and Eskimo jurisprudence. The culture and society that governs most of the animal world is superior to Wahhabi culure. Comparing Saudi culture to the US is so idiotic, it destroys your argument.
When it comes to domestic violence, every nation could be better. So what?
The best response to threats of homicidal violence is a 9mm glock. Compared to most nations, America has the most liberal self-defense laws – one of many reasons to be glad to live here.
Um, I think Jill gets it, even though the post doesn’t make that clear. Is this debate, or pinata-whacking?
The wrist-sized stick thing was…well, just wrong, in all senses of the word. Dunno about the rest of you, but a stick the size of my wrist would be thicker than an axe handle. Might as well make it legal to beat her to death.
Never shoulda given ‘em shoes, that’s what I say…
SB: pattern
ya think?
This seems to be a general theme here, could someone please explain this to me? Is an uncultured society more peaceful? After all these years of the left’s elite pissing and moaning about how America didn’t have a real culture, are we now to accept that culture is a bad thing?
I dunno, I suppose anarchy might be less violent, but it seems unlikely to me.
I suspect what might be more appropriate would be to say some backwards ass, bronze age cultures promote institutionalised violence.
Abortion is now the same thing as male castration? That’s rich. And you want to know what’s more violent than that? A man beating a woman’s face into the ground because she dared take control over her own life. Women self-inducing abortions with coat hangers, knitting needles and now ulcer drugs because they can’t get them legally. This is more violent (warning: graphic).
Susan, I think you’ve stepped a little off the deep end. But let’s clear a few things up: First, feminists never burned their bras. That’s a huge urban legend. There was a protest against the Miss America pageant (speaking of anorexia and fake breasts) in which a group of feminists threw bras and garters in the trash can, but they didn’t burn them. Gloria Steinem wasn’t there.
And since when does feminism promote fake breasts and anorexia? You’ve got the wrong movement.
Well, you’re welcome to think that I’m hysterical, though I’m actually quite serious. The cultural ills that I was talking about basically come down to misogyny. Yes, Saudi Arabian culture is far more misogynist than U.S. culture. Yes, women there have it far worse than women here. I’ve repeated this about 55 times now. Domestic violence in Saudi Arabia is legally condoned (or at the very least ignored), as I pointed out in the post. Obviously, that makes it more prevelant. A whole slew of other cultural factors contribute to the fact that violence against women in Saudi Arabia is far more systematic and silenced than it is here.
But violence against women and girls is an international problem, that affects even developed western nations like the United States. My point was that VAW springs from the misogynist roots in any culture. Yes, some cultures are more accepting of it than others; in those cultures, we see that VAW is more widepread and usually worse. But I was talking about socio-cultural factors, not legal ones (although those socio-cultural factors greatly influence the legal system). Nowhere did I say that the cultures are identical; nowhere did I say that the kinds of misogyny we see in both cultures are identical. I was simply pointing out that hatred of women and lack of resources for women are factors which, in both cultures, allow VAW to occur.
Who said you had to change your vocabulary? I used the term “intimate partner violence” because it’s generally more accurate than “domestic violence” (although I use that term too). “Domestic violence” implies a shared domicile; while this is often true, many women and men experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner with whom they aren’t living. Hence the change in terms. “Violence against women” and “domestic violence” are still fine terms to use. No one here is trying to tell you how to speak/write.
<blockquote>… the cultural ills … exist there and … here /blockquote>
To greatly paraphrase your sentence that I took exception to.
Still don’t see a problem? I guess you probably don’t if you think that a court ordered stoning, and a miracle bra are both valid examples of mysogyny.
VAW???? Now I’ve got to start using acronyms???
Now, I’ve gotta wonder if you guys are being purposefully obtuse.
This actually made me laugh so hard that grapefruit juice almost came out my nose. I IMed it to all my friends. Self-criticism makes you a damned Marxist? I hope you’re kidding, because if you’re not, you’re a fucking parody of yourself.
Here are a few:
-The U.S. and all other nations should sign CEDAW and actually follow it.
-There should be a substantive effort to improve pay and conditions in “pink-collar” jobs, so that low-wage female workers will not have to depend on abusive partners for support.
-Aid for women with dependant children should be adequate for their independant survival, again so that women will not have to dependent on abusive partners for economic support.
-At a deeper cultural level, I hope that all those things which eroticize and endorse violence against women will eventually disappear—down to the smallest things, like the juxtaposition of an attractive underwear-clad woman and a bloody, violent death in horror movies. Until then, I hope people will take it upon themselves to avoid these things.
-More funding to domestic violence shelters, and greater outreach to non-English-speaking communities
Obviously there are a lot more, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Not coming to the rescue or anything, but you people might want to consider not spitting all over the messenger. Jill’s been rather civil, here, and hasn’t done anything at all to earn the response she’s gotten.
Oh, and intimate partner violence is the parlance; Jill didn’t invent it.
The God of TW has seen fit to bestow enough on me. Hopefully it’s enough all around.
Nothing makes me want to bitch-slap somebody more than when they start grabbing for my wallet.
Slarti —
Didn’t mean to imply that Jill invented IPV, and I don’t think any of my spittle landed anywhere near her.
TW Love—as in “Can’t you just feel the love”
Sinequanonblog
NahNah NahNah PooPoo, Go Soak You Head in DooDoo.
This little land mine is gonna cause problems with this treaty:
Is it possible for the feminist movement to do anything without making abortion a central issue? Not saying it is not an issue, but I don’t see how it is worth dooming your own treaty over. I would recommend stopping the violence, then trying to legalise abortion.
These are economic issues, and shakey ones at that. There are plenty of instances where the violence is instigated by men who are threatened by a woman’s independance. Money is not a blanket solution.
Horror movies cause violence against women? And I am being deliberately obtuse? ^^
Agreed.
Oh, look. I didn’t mean to express moral equivalence here. The basic issue is that women were chattel in the environment of evolutionary advantage. They were owned. They had to be protected and kept safe, and also protected from other sperm broadcasters. How women are treated in any society is directly proportional to how far the rule of law has progressed in that society. Sha’ria has evolved as a codification of the old ownership standards (in part), but all the XY have those occasional impulses, expressed as domestic violence, serial murder, or stalking. It’s hard wired.
The proposed iraqi constitution that everyone is wringing their hands over actually contradicts Sha’ria in places–this is a HUGE advance for the treatment of muslim women.
But i’m really sick of seeing Islam cherry-picked for horror stories and demonized. We got better at treating women equally in our very recent history, and so will they.
Sperm broadcasters?
What am I, a fish now?
Sperm broadcasters
There’s some pun-potential there that I feel morally superior in not exploiting, although I’m an utter dirtbag for thinking of it at all.
If you’re relying on the UN to end women’s discriminiation, I wish you great luck in finding a competent means of ensuring womens’ equality. To me, it looks like feel good legislation with little substance…
That seems a little specific as an aid to help stop violence against women. Do we have to treat EVERY specific symptom with its own brand of monetary handouts? Personally, I would prefer just a nationwide initiative to castrate any man who attacks a woman, shield not sword, of course.
Giving that sort of aid specifically to single mothers, wouldn’t that violate some kind of equal rights statute somewhere? You know, for not giving it to women…
Of course, that would require it to be possible to discriminate against men.
In movies, if you kill a woman and are a man, you die at the end, more or less without fail, unless you get respawning rights per being a horror movie monster, or the woman was both unquestionably evil, would have killed you otherwise, AND the death was relatively exotic.
Then again, by those rules, Samuel L. Jackson’s character should not have survived xXx2, but let’s not count that movie, shall we?
Anyway, that horror movie juxtaposition of sex and violence drives home horror movie fundamentals more than promoting violence against women, it seems to me. That, on some level, an element of sex in a horror movie can add an edge to it… I believe one movie critic phrased it, jokingly, “Because sex is nasty and dirty and naughty and anyone who does it should be punished violently.” Not the most effective way of phrasing it, but I could understand it from a standpoint of trying to up the thrill factor.
That and selling to pubescent boys.
But, back to my original point, I see just as many, if not more, things discouraging violence against women in media than I see anything romanticizing it.
That’s a given.
Up to a point, yes. In cultures in which woman were given a bit more freedom, specifically to act as choosers, progress has been much quicker. Men aren’t as likely to have the best interest of the species in mind when picking a partner.
And vice versa. So which is cause and which the effect?
Of course, you haven’t got the particulars of that law around anymore, do you? You know, it’s section number, when it was passed, etc?
Because, like others, I call bullshit.
I remember a few months ago over at Michael Berube’s blog some academic commenter said something innocuous about how someone in the news was not helpful to call Gitmo as bad as or worse than the Gulag, it would not be credible or convincing to highlight abuses of that scale.
Chris Clarke jumped all over her, said people like her excused bushitler’s amerikkan atrocities and were dooming all of mankind, didn’t give a damn about the suffering, etc. Just smoking ruins, and this was against a fellow lefty who deigned to say something without prefacing it with hysterical condemnation.
DanD, if you remember this, could you provide us with the url? The Internets make it really easy to corroborate accusations of this nature. And corroboration would be especially useful in this case, because I’ve read everything on my blog, and I’ve never seen Chris Clarke do anything of the kind.
Jill
I thank you for at least trying to come up with a list, even if some of the items are the usual boilerplate—“More tax money please and forget the 1st amendment, too.”
I’m home for lunch and thought I’d share that my in-custody list tomorrow (people arrested over the 3 day weekend who didn’t bail/OR out) there are 9 cases where the booked charges are PC273.5A—Domestic Violence.
4 of the suspects are women.
Yes, misogyny exists on the mircro within individuals in American society—but, it is neither institutionalized or a matter of public policy. But you know, misandry exists, too. And worst of all, when anyone insists that domestic violence in the US is in anyway equivalent to what goes on in Islamist theocracies like SA or Iran, what happens is that a majority of the reasonable people who hear the message are going to dismiss it as the balderdash it is. AND they are going to start questioning everything that is brought up as “yet another example of AMERICAN RUNNING DOG MISOGYNY!”
The concluding paragraph of the post was gratuitous and, frankly, risible.
-At a deeper cultural level, I hope that all those things which eroticize and endorse violence against women will eventually disappearâ€â€down to the smallest things, like the juxtaposition of an attractive underwear-clad woman and a bloody, violent death in horror movies. Until then, I hope people will take it upon themselves to avoid these things.
I find it hard to believe that the connection between sex and violence is likely to evaporate soon if ever–it seems to be, if not a biologically hard-wired association, certainly a deeply rooted part of our culture which is in no way confined to ideas about a male aggressor and submissive female victim. Certainly it is hardly confined to heterosexual relations with the violence being directed only at the female partner. There is a sexual frisson in violent movies in which women never appear, and in scenes in violent movies in which they neither appear nor are mentioned (Fight Club, anyone?). Persons of all sexual orientations willingly submit themselves to some degree of violence from their partners–and, frankly, get off on it. And since, as I say, both men and women, both gay and straight, may be commonly found who are masochists it’s hard for me to dismiss, say, a woman who likes her boyfriend to spank her during sex as merely ‘falsely conscious’–since you could easily find a gay man, straight man, or lesbian who enjoys the same thing. Simply put, I don’t really see how extirpating any and all potentially dangerous or threatening sexual fantasies from our art and popular culture is either possible or desirable–nor does the connection between violence or danger and sex seem to me to be inherently misogynistic.
We in the US know our failings. We know our past.
ah ha ha h ah ha ha h a aha!
good one! Haven’t seen anything this funny since Bill O’Reilly had one of the Powertools on to complain about “smear blogs”!
While the whole “where are the funny conservative bloggers” thing is so July 2005, I am glad to see you are still toiling along, trying to win a game long called for the other side and the audience at home sipping their cocktails and enjoying Fafblog. So noble.
In other news, Jeff, you’re attempting to shut down the discussion. Which attempt, if these locations are any indication, is lame; pathetic, man.
Found that French tickler nib for your sybian, did you Kathleen?
Do you have anything substantive to add to conversation, Kathleen? Or are you fresh out of ammo?
TV (Harry)
Who’s this Kathleen, and why does she leave psychotic comments on your site, Jeff?
Kathleen = appropriate argument in favor of mysogyny
Kathleen
Q’s to you. What public policy or institutionalized violence against women do you see in the US? What makes you believe domestic violence is ignored or </i>condoned?</i>
And in light of The Patriarchy, why are there occurances of domestic violence where the woman is the aggressor? Or DV between gays or lesbians?
And don’t you worry that making an unsupportable “and America is just as bad as SA with the misogyny and violence” argument will, instead of galvanizing allies, just make them suspicious of your motives?
Take your time sobering up from the luncheon cocktail, I’ll be back after work.
Boy that sure does sound fancy, the big words are supposed to make it convincing?
How do matriarchial soccieties fit into your “environment of evolutionary advantage” ?
[…] superficial political incarnation, etc. -ed.] That’s one of the reasons why I’ve yet to see any sign of disgust at these kinds of bigotries at Protein Wisdom. You folks are very clever and you’re smart enough […]
jB8oBk hi nice site thx http://peace.com
porn for lesbians http://jeniferfree-site-host.com/porn-for-lesbians/map.html porn for lesbians
sex lesbians http://linda.free-site-host.com/sex-lesbians/map.html sex lesbians
nice site dude
cool post dude
nice work man 10x
it’s nice site
k5qurn nice site! http://gov.com
please look at this lipitor pills 50276
Pretty good read, i will social bookmark this.
most artistically Site. subsidize up the unrivalled whip into shape.
fzjjri http://downloads-movie.ifrance.com/ HQ movies. Download now djdsh7e
A friend of mine grew up in a pretty tough area where the men amused themselves by having neighborhod boys bareknuckle box while they bet on who would win. ,